Radially expandable endoprostheses are artificial devices adapted to be implanted in an anatomical lumen. An “anatomical lumen” refers to a cavity, duct, of a tubular organ such as a blood vessel, urinary tract, and bile duct. Stents are examples of endoprostheses that are generally cylindrical in shape and function to hold open and sometimes expand a segment of an anatomical lumen (one example of a stent is found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,066,167 to Lau et al). Stents are often used in the treatment of atherosclerotic stenosis in blood vessels. “Stenosis” refers to a narrowing or constriction of the diameter of a bodily passage or orifice. In such treatments, stents reinforce the walls of the blood vessel and prevent restenosis following angioplasty in the vascular system. “Restenosis” refers to the reoccurrence of stenosis in a blood vessel or heart valve after it has been treated (as by balloon angioplasty, stenting, or valvuloplasty) with apparent success.
The treatment of a diseased site or lesion with a stent involves both delivery and deployment of the stent. “Delivery” refers to introducing and transporting the stent through an anatomical lumen to a desired treatment site, such as a lesion. “Deployment” corresponds to expansion of the stent within the lumen at the treatment region. Delivery and deployment of a stent are accomplished by positioning the stent about one end of a catheter, inserting the end of the catheter through the skin into an anatomical lumen, advancing the catheter in the anatomical lumen to a desired treatment location, expanding the stent at the treatment location, and removing the catheter from the lumen.
In the case of a balloon expandable stent, the stent is mounted about a balloon disposed on the catheter. Mounting the stent typically involves compressing or crimping the stent onto the balloon prior to insertion in an anatomical lumen. At the treatment site within the lumen, the stent is expanded by inflating the balloon. The balloon may then be deflated and the catheter withdrawn from the stent and the lumen, leaving the stent at the treatment site. In the case of a self-expanding stent, the stent may be secured to the catheter via a retractable sheath. When the stent is at the treatment site, the sheath may be withdrawn which allows the stent to self-expand.
The stent must be able to satisfy a number of basic, functional requirements. The stent must be capable of withstanding the structural loads, for example, radial compressive forces, imposed on the stent as it supports the walls of a vessel after deployment. Therefore, a stent must possess adequate radial strength. After deployment, the stent must adequately maintain its size and shape throughout its service life despite the various forces that may come to bear on it. In particular, the stent must adequately maintain a vessel at a prescribed diameter for a desired treatment time despite these forces. The treatment time may correspond to the time required for the vessel walls to remodel, after which the stent is no longer necessary for the vessel to maintain a desired diameter.
Radial strength, which is the ability of a stent to resist radial compressive forces, relates to a stent's radial yield strength and radial stiffness around a circumferential direction of the stent. A stent's “radial yield strength” or “radial strength” (for purposes of this application) may be understood as the compressive loading, which if exceeded, creates a yield stress condition resulting in the stent diameter not returning to its unloaded diameter, i.e., there is irrecoverable deformation of the stent. When the radial yield strength is exceeded the stent is expected to yield more severely and only a minimal force is required to cause major deformation.
Even before the radial yield strength is exceeded there may be permanent deformation in the stent a following radial compressive load, but this degree of permanent deformation somewhere in the stent is not severe enough to have a significant effect on the stent's overall ability to radially support a vessel. Therefore, in some cases the art may view “radial yield strength” as the maximum radial loading, beyond which the scaffold stiffness changes dramatically. “Radial yield strength” units are sometimes force-divided-by-length, which is an expression of radial yield strength on a per-unit-length basis. Thus, for a radial yield strength per unit length, e.g., F N/mm, the radial load which, if it exceeds this value, would result in significant change in stiffness for a stent having two different lengths, L1 and L2, would therefore be the product F*L1 and F*L2, respectively. The value F, however, is the same in both cases, so that a convenient expression can be used to appreciate the radial yield strength independent of the length of the stent. Typically, the radial force that identifies the point where stiffness is lost does not change much on a per-unit-length basis when the stent length changes.
Stents implanted in coronary arteries are primarily subjected to radial loads, typically cyclic in nature, which are due to the periodic contraction and expansion of vessels as blood is pumped to and from a beating heart. Stents implanted in peripheral blood vessels, or blood vessels outside the coronary arteries, e.g., iliac, femoral, popliteal, renal and subclavian arteries, however, must be capable of sustaining both radial forces and crushing or pinching loads. These stent types are implanted in vessels that are closer to the surface of the body. Because these stents are close to the surface of the body, they are particularly vulnerable to crushing or pinching loads, which can partially or completely collapse the stent and thereby block fluid flow in the vessel.
As compared to a coronary stent, which is limited to radial loads, a peripheral stent must take into account the significant differences between pinching or crushing loads and radial loads, as documented in Duerig, Tolomeo, Wholey, Overview of superelastic stent Design, Min Invas Ther & Allied Technol 9(3/4), pp. 235-246 (2000) and Stoeckel, Pelton, Duerig, Self-Expanding Nitinol Stents—Material and Design Considerations, European Radiology (2003). The corresponding crushing and radial stiffness properties of the stent also can vary dramatically. As such, a stent that possesses a certain degree of radial stiffness does not, generally speaking, also indicate the degree of pinching stiffness possessed by the stent. The two stiffness properties are not the same, or even similar.
The amount of cross-sectional crush expected for a peripheral stent implanted within the femoral artery has been estimated to be about 5.8+/−7%, 6.5+/−4.9% and 5.1+/−6.4% at the top, middle and bottom portions of the femoral artery in older patients and 2.5+/−7.7%, −0.8+/−9.4% and −1.5+/−10.5% for younger patients. Other considerations for peripheral stents are the degree of bending and axial compression the stent can withstand without mechanical loss of strength/stiffness. As compared to coronary stents, a peripheral stent usually has lengths of between about 36 and 40 mm when implanted in the superficial femoral artery, as an example. As such, the stent must be flexible enough to withstand axial compression and bending loading without failure. The amount of bending and axial compression expected has been studied and reported in Nikanorov, Alexander, M. D. et al., Assessment of self-expanding Nitinol stent deformation after chronic implantation into the superficial femoral artery. 
To date the most commonly used type of peripheral stent are self-expanding stents made from super-elastic material, such as Nitinol. This type of material is known for its ability to return to its original configuration after severe deformation, such as a crushing load or longitudinal bending. However, this variety of self-expanding stents have undesired qualities; most notably, the high resiliency of super-elastic material produces what is commonly referred to as a “chronic outward force” (COF) on the blood vessel supported by the stent. Complications resulting from COF are discussed in Schwartz, Lewis B. et al. Does Stent Placement have a learning curve: what mistakes do we as operators have to make and how can they be avoided?, Abbott Laboratories; Abbott Park, Ill., USA. It is believed that a COF exerted on a blood vessel by a self-expending stent is a main contributor to high degrees of restenosis of lesions treated by the self-expanding stent. It has been shown that not even an anti-proliferative drug delivered from drug eluting self-expandable stents can mitigate the restenosis caused by the stent's COF.
Stents that are plastically deformed by a balloon to support a vessel do not suffer from this drawback. Indeed, balloon expanded stents, in contrast to self-expanding stents made from a super-elastic material, have the desirable quality of being deployable to the desired diameter for supporting the vessel without exerting residual outward forces on the vessel. However, the prior art has concluded that plastically deformed stents, once collapsed, pinched or crushed in a peripheral artery will remain so, permanently blocking the vessel. The prior art has concluded, therefore, that plastically deformed stents pose an undesirable condition to the patient and should not be used to treat peripheral blood vessels.
A polymer scaffold, such as that described in US 2010/0004735 is made from a biodegradable, bioabsorbable, bioresorbable, or bioerodable polymer. The terms biodegradable, bioabsorbable, bioresorbable, biosoluble or bioerodable refer to the property of a material or stent to degrade, absorb, resorb, or erode away from an implant site. The polymer scaffold described in US 2010/0004735, as opposed to a metal stent, is intended to remain in the body for only a limited period of time. The scaffold is made from a biodegradable or bioerodable polymer. In many treatment applications, the presence of a stent in a body may be necessary for a limited period of time until its intended function of, for example, maintaining vascular patency and/or drug delivery is accomplished. Moreover, it is believed that biodegradable scaffolds allow for improved healing of the anatomical lumen as compared to metal stents, which may lead to a reduced incidence of late stage thrombosis. In these cases, there is a desire to treat a vessel using a polymer scaffold, in particular a bioerodible polymer scaffold, as opposed to a metal stent, so that the prosthesis's presence in the vessel is for a limited duration. However, there are numerous challenges to overcome when developing a polymer scaffold.
The art recognizes a variety of factors that affect a polymeric scaffold's ability to retain its structural integrity and/or shape when subjected to external loadings, such as crimping and balloon expansion forces. These interactions are complex and the mechanisms of action not fully understood. According to the art, characteristics differentiating a polymeric, bio-absorbable scaffold of the type expanded to a deployed state by plastic deformation from a similarly functioning metal scaffold are many and significant. Indeed, several of the accepted analytic or empirical methods/models used to predict the behavior of metallic scaffolds tend to be unreliable, if not inappropriate, as methods/models for reliably and consistently predicting the highly non-linear, time dependent behavior of a polymeric load-bearing structure of a balloon-expandable scaffold. The models are not generally capable of providing an acceptable degree of certainty required for purposes of implanting the scaffold within a body, or predicting/anticipating the empirical data.
Moreover, it is recognized that the state of the art in medical device-related balloon fabrication, e.g., non-compliant balloons for scaffold deployment and/or angioplasty, provide only limited information about how a polymeric material might behave when used to support a lumen within a living being via plastic deformation of a network of rings interconnected by struts. In short, methods devised to improve mechanical features of an inflated, thin-walled balloon structure, most analogous to mechanical properties of a pre-loaded membrane when the balloon is inflated and supporting a lumen, simply provides little, if any insight into the behavior of a deployed polymeric scaffold. One difference, for example, is the propensity for fracture or cracks to develop in a polymer scaffold. The art recognizes the mechanical problem as too different to provide helpful insights, therefore, despite a shared similarity in class of material. At best, the balloon fabrication art provides only general guidance for one seeking to improve characteristics of a balloon-expanded, bio-absorbable polymeric scaffold.
Polymer material considered for use as a polymeric scaffold, e.g. poly(L-lactide) (“PLLA”), poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) (“PLGA”), poly(D-lactide-co-glycolide) or poly(L-lactide-co-D-lactide) (“PLLA-co-PDLA”) with less than 10% D-lactide, and PLLD/PDLA stereo complex, may be described, through comparison with a metallic material used to form a stent, in some of the following ways. A suitable polymer has a low strength to weight ratio, which means more material is needed to provide an equivalent mechanical property to that of a metal. Therefore, struts must be made thicker and wider to have the required strength for a stent to support lumen walls at a desired radius. The scaffold made from such polymers also tends to be brittle or have limited fracture toughness. The anisotropic and rate-dependant inelastic properties (i.e., strength/stiffness of the material varies depending upon the rate at which the material is deformed) inherent in the material, only compound this complexity in working with a polymer, particularly, bio-absorbable polymer such as PLLA or PLGA.
Processing steps performed on, and design changes made to a metal stent that have not typically raised concerns for, or required careful attention to unanticipated changes in the average mechanical properties of the material, therefore, may not also apply to a polymer scaffold due to the non-linear and sometimes unpredictable nature of the mechanical properties of the polymer under a similar loading condition. It is sometimes the case that one needs to undertake extensive validation before it even becomes possible to predict more generally whether a particular condition is due to one factor or another—e.g., was a defect the result of one or more steps of a fabrication process, or one or more steps in a process that takes place after scaffold fabrication, e.g., crimping? As a consequence, a change to a fabrication process, post-fabrication process or even relatively minor changes to a scaffold pattern design must, generally speaking, be investigated more thoroughly than if a metallic material were used instead of the polymer. It follows, therefore, that when choosing among different polymeric scaffold designs for improvement thereof, there are far less inferences, theories, or systematic methods of discovery available, as a tool for steering one clear of unproductive paths, and towards more productive paths for improvement, than when making changes in a metal stent.
The present inventors recognize, therefore, that, whereas inferences previously accepted in the art for stent validation or feasibility when an isotropic and ductile metallic material was used, those inferences would be inappropriate for a polymeric scaffold. A change in a polymeric scaffold pattern may affect not only the stiffness or lumen coverage of the scaffold in its deployed state supporting a lumen, but also the propensity for fractures to develop when the scaffold is crimped or being deployed. This means that, in comparison to a metallic stent, there is generally no assumption that can be made as to whether a changed scaffold pattern may not produce an adverse outcome, or require a significant change in a processing step (e.g., tube forming, laser cutting, crimping, etc.). Simply put, the highly favorable, inherent properties of a metal (generally invariant stress/strain properties with respect to the rate of deformation or the direction of loading, and the material's ductile nature), which simplify the stent fabrication process, allow for inferences to be more easily drawn between a changed stent pattern and/or a processing step and the ability for the stent to be reliably manufactured with the new pattern and without defects when implanted within a living being.
A change in the pattern of the struts and rings of a polymeric scaffold that is plastically deformed, both when crimped to, and when later deployed by a balloon, unfortunately, is not predictable to the same or similar degree as for a metal stent. Indeed, it is recognized that unexpected problems may arise in polymer scaffold fabrication steps as a result of a changed pattern that would not have necessitated any changes if the pattern was instead formed from a metal tube. In contrast to changes in a metallic stent pattern, a change in polymer scaffold pattern may necessitate other modifications in fabrication steps or post-fabrication processing, such as crimping and sterilization.
In addition to meeting the requirements described above, it is desirable for a scaffold to be radiopaque, or fluoroscopically visible under x-rays. Accurate placement is facilitated by real time visualization of the delivery of a scaffold. A cardiologist or interventional radiologist can track the delivery catheter through the patient's vasculature and precisely place the scaffold at the site of a lesion. This is typically accomplished by fluoroscopy or similar x-ray visualization procedures. For a scaffold to be fluoroscopically visible it must be more absorptive of x-rays than the surrounding tissue. Radiopaque materials in a scaffold may allow for its direct visualization. However, a significant shortcoming of a biodegradable polymer scaffold (and polymers generally composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) is that they are radiolucent with no radiopacity. Biodegradable polymers tend to have x-ray absorption similar to body tissue. One way of addressing this problem is to attach radiopaque markers to structural elements of the stent. A radiopaque marker can be disposed within a structural element in such a way that the marker is secured to the structural element. However, the use of stent markers on polymeric stents entails a number of challenges. One challenge relates to the difficulty of insertion of markers. These and related difficulties are discussed in US 2007/0156230.
There is a need to develop a prosthesis for treating peripheral blood vessels that possesses the desirable qualities of a balloon expanded stent, which does not exert residual outward forces on the vessel (as in the case of a self-expanding stent) while, at the same time, being sufficiently resilient to recover from a pinching or crushing load in a peripheral blood vessel, in addition to the other loading events expected within a peripheral blood vessel that are not typically experienced by a coronary scaffold. There is also a need to fabricate such a polymer scaffold so that the prosthesis also is capable of possessing at least a minimum radial strength and stiffness required to support a peripheral blood vessel; a low crossing profile; and a limited presence in the blood vessel. There is also a need for a scaffold that is easily monitored during its pendency using standard imaging techniques, and is capable of high yield production.